MET PARKING TICKET - Gatwick Mcdonalds

mstrkrft

Hi all,

I'm after a bit of advice. I received a private ticket from MET. I have used the template on this forum and sent it across using their on-line form. I received an acknowledgement letter by post saying it has been forwarded to the relevant department.

My question is what if they email the decision to me and do not put it in writing?

Also, there's nothing about keeper liability on the 'Notice to Registered Keeper'. Do I have any grounds to challenge it based on that?

Thanks in advance!

Redx

doesnt really matter , despite the warning in the template


all that really matters is that you receive it, even if its in your spam folder, so keep an eye out for the rejection and popla code , within 35 days


if they have not given the POFA2012 warning to the keeper, your popla appeal will include it


have a look at the POPLA DECISIONS thread, last page, I was just reading about a successful win for somebody else, so crib from theor thread (plus other similar 2018 threads on here)


you are not alone, so read what has gone before and act on the winners

mstrkrft

Thanks so much, that was a great help. I've read the successful POPLA appeal about MET at Stansted and seems to be exactly the situation as at their Gatwick Mcdonalds. Hopefully I'll have the same success!

mstrkrft

Received this on Friday!

"MET Parking Services have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.



Yours sincerely



POPLA Team"

For anyone else in the same situation there are 3 or 4 templates on the same issue I had in this forum. I amended it to my circumstances and sent it off to POPLA as part of my appeal. Nice and simple, and no need to pay the cowboys!

Coupon-mad

Hahaha, nice one - and well done!

Umkomaas

I think where PPCs decide not to contest at POPLA then they should be required to clarify the reason(s) for their decision. To save them using either brain cell, they could have a multi-choice list.

1. We do not possess the intellectual capacity to string a few words together to put any case forward.

2. One/some/all the points raised by the appellant in the initial appeal were relevant, but we were just wanting to put him/her through the hassle hoping they would just pay up.

3. We don't have authority to issue tickets on this site.

4. We just wanted to scam them, hoping they'd find paying easier than the hassle and intimidation we were putting them through.

5. Our knuckles hurt too much to type anything.

6. Other ..... but we expect this to be too difficult for you to put any coherent form of words together - so don't worry, just tick any of the above boxes. In fact it's quite possible you will want to tick all of them!